“Pong” gets a physics boost, by way of HTML5

Real-time modeling of fluid dynamics makes for a fun but frustrating game.

Physics and computer games have a long, beautiful friendship, starting with Spacewar! in 1962, its play based on spacecraft maneuvering in the gravitational field of a star. Many modern games have extensive physics engines to create realistic play. (Your mileage may vary in terms of "realism"—I'm looking at you, entire Mario franchise!) For an explicit merging of realistic physics and classic arcade game play, it's hard to beat Plasma Pong, Steve Taylor's 2007 browser-based game that was named by Wired as one of the best independent titles.

Plasma Pong, alas, suffered an early death via a cease-and-desist from Atari, which owns the PONG™ trademark. However, Australian developer Anirudh Joshi revamped the title and changed its name to Fluid Ping-Pong, giving it an HTML5 flourish along the way. While PONG™ had very simple physics—just a ball bouncing back and forth, with no need to model forces—Fluid Ping-Pong uses a real-time fluid dynamics engine, with code and concepts from Jos Stam, Oliver Hunt, and RJ Marsan. The extra dynamics are evident from the name: the ball moves in a somewhat viscous fluid. In addition to moving the paddles PONG™-style, players can send jets into the ambient fluid, or "suck" the fluid back.

Because the gameplay is based on real fluid dynamics, the motion of the ball can be unpredictable, at least on the level of human reaction times. Having two players (one AI in my case—I haven't tested the two-player mode) means there could be two competing streams of fluid colliding, with turbulence at the boundary. While it's realistic and based on modeling of the fluids using the Navier-Stokes equation, anyone who has used a ping-pong gun knows how erratically the ball can move even in fairly still air.

I found the gameplay fun but frustrating, worth more than a few minutes of enjoyably wasted time. More interesting to me is the intersection between the real science of fluid dynamics and video games—and why a realistic mix may not always be desirable.

Not bad, but the fluid colors need to be muted a lot so you can see the ball and paddles. That, and the reaction time of push / pull is much faster than paddle up / down, making it a bit uncoordinated, like the arcade original.

I remember a downloadable version of this too, in addition it also had a sandbox mode that just allowed you to push and pull the "fluid" from any point on the screen and watch the chaos.

At least, I think I remember this...

I remember that too.. sucks that Atari had to go and shit all over it .. I can understand not wanting someone else to profit off of your intellectual property, but, iirc, the game was being given away as freeware, so how does that harm Atari at all?

oh and yea, the sandbox mode was way more fun than the unbeatable AI..

I can understand not wanting someone else to profit off of your intellectual property, but, iirc, the game was being given away as freeware, so how does that harm Atari at all?

Trademark law protects against brand confusion that could lead to negative perception of Pong(TM) and the Atari game franchise.

Imagine hypothetically, for example, this game, while free, included draconian DRM that involved the submission of lots and lots of personal data. Everyone grumbled about the new Pong game DRM and some people swore never to buy that publisher's products again. Worse yet, the developer didn't secure the servers, and all the personal information gets leaked on the Internet. Headlines pop up about the new Pong game that leaked everyone's info. E-mail accounts are hacked, damage is done, and people get angry and want to sue the developer for negligence. Everyone goes to boycott the developer... er, who developed Pong again? Oh, right, Atari. DOWN WITH ATARI!

Except Atari didn't do anything, other than not police their trademark in Pong. Not to mention that companies who don't police their trademarks will lose them as they revert back to the public domain as generic terms. Atari has done nothing wrong here, even if no money changed hands.

I can understand not wanting someone else to profit off of your intellectual property, but, iirc, the game was being given away as freeware, so how does that harm Atari at all?

Trademark law protects against brand confusion that could lead to negative perception of Pong(TM) and the Atari game franchise.

Imagine hypothetically, for example, this game, while free, included draconian DRM that involved the submission of lots and lots of personal data. Everyone grumbled about the new Pong game DRM and some people swore never to buy that publisher's products again. Worse yet, the developer didn't secure the servers, and all the personal information gets leaked on the Internet. Headlines pop up about the new Pong game that leaked everyone's info. E-mail accounts are hacked, damage is done, and people get angry and want to sue the developer for negligence. Everyone goes to boycott the developer... er, who developed Pong again? Oh, right, Atari. DOWN WITH ATARI!

So it's because people might be too dumb to figure out who to direct their anger towards? That sucks, why can't we just educate people instead of legislating around the idea that people are ignorant? I mean, if some guy named Steve released Subpar Mario Brothers and it turned out to be an unfun game, riddled with malware that caused my computer to explode, I wouldn't turn around and blame Nintendo.

Quote:

Except Atari didn't do anything, other than not police their trademark in Pong. Not to mention that companies who don't police their trademarks will lose them as they revert back to the public domain as generic terms. Atari has done nothing wrong here, even if no money changed hands.

If they aren't going to make a new pong, then shouldn't it revert to public domain so somebody else can?

I get what you're saying though, thanks for the enlightenment. I still think it stinks, but I understand. We can't have nice things because people are dumb.. now I'm sad

I found the gameplay fun but frustrating, worth more than a few minutes of enjoyably wasted time. More interesting to me is the intersection between the real science of fluid dynamics and video games—and why a realistic mix may not always be desirable.

You're right, it is frustrating. I don't care how interesting the physics engine is — a game has to be fun or else it's just a bad game.

Plasma Pong, alas, suffered an early death via a cease-and-desist from Atari, which owns the PONG™ trademark. However, Australian developer Anirudh Joshi revamped the title and changed its name to Fluid Ping-Pong, giving it an HTML5 flourish along the way."

Plasma Pong, alas, suffered an early death via a cease-and-desist from Atari, which owns the PONG™ trademark. However, Australian developer Anirudh Joshi revamped the title and changed its name to Fluid Ping-Pong, giving it an HTML5 flourish along the way."

I found the gameplay fun but frustrating, worth more than a few minutes of enjoyably wasted time. More interesting to me is the intersection between the real science of fluid dynamics and video games—and why a realistic mix may not always be desirable.

You're right, it is frustrating. I don't care how interesting the physics engine is — a game has to be fun or else it's just a bad game.

Sorry about that - it's still just a beta - I'll work on fixing that ridiculous AI soon enough - I completely understand where you are coming form.

What kind of developer use WASD for controls that are impossible to remap?

QUERTY is not universal, so please use ESDF, or even better, allow the keys to be remapped.

Sure thing - I've been meaning to make a generalized keymapper for a while now - just tried to make it work first.

A generalized keymapper is not a piece of cake to code, so just using ESDF as the default fixed layout would be great. It's functionally strictly equivalent, require no additional effort by the developer, with the added benefit of not make your game totally unplayable for people with AZERTY keyboards.